Sunday, January 27, 2013

Richard Bush on ROC 100th, Sept 2012

Richard Bush's speech to the Academia Historica in Taipei last September, up at Brookings this month. Bush is a major US government expert on Taiwan. The speech is studded with errors and omissions, most likely the result of a need to play to its audience. I'd like to isolate a couple of points. Bush writes:

Civic nationalism, I would suggest, is becoming the dominant type for a majority of Taiwan people. It is an attachment to the island’s democratic system and its norms of popular sovereignty and majority rule. To put it simply, it is an attachment to today’s ROC and all it stands for.

The last sentence has everything backwards. Taiwanese are attached to their democracy and link it to the ROC only to the extent that the ROC equates itself to Taiwan. The Taiwanese are hardly attached to the ROC's grandiose territorial goals and do not see themselves as the rulers of China. Moreover, as I have noted here many times, prominent ROC symbols, such as the flag are increasingly being reinterpreted by the locals as symbols of Taiwan. Of course, the attachment to democracy is not an attachment to the ROC and all it stands for -- to get democracy, the locals had to fight the ROC and all it stood for. But Bush can't say that to a bunch of crusty old deep blues at a national nostalgia fest, I suppose.

These differences between ethnic nationalism and civic nationalism and between territory and the state are not simply an abstract academic matter. They have significant consequences for cross-Strait relations. A Taiwan that cannot agree on these issues is a Taiwan that is in a weaker position visà-vis the PRC.

Skipping over his remarkably bass-akwards construction of ethnic and civic nationalism, Bush has been making this point about Taiwan's lack of internal consensus for a while (for example). This point is often made, but it is never made concretely. For example, Bush has never identified what would count as "consensus" or explained how such a "consensus" would help Taiwan concretely.

Indeed, does Bush really want Taiwan to internally resolve the issue of whether it is a territory or a state? Fact is, Washington analysts like Bush would be buying ulcer medicine by the case if Taiwan ever actually came to a consensus and formally resolved the issue of whether it is a territory or a state. Because everyone who has ever lived here for twenty minutes knows which outcome the Taiwanese would prefer. The actual consensus on that issue -- do nothing, hope we can muddle through somehow -- is what keeps Washington happy.

Ironically Bush already named some of the elements of the Taiwan consensus in another piece of his, a response to Bob Sutter he co-wrote with Alan Romberg (here with my responses). The actual, real consensus in Taiwan rests on the bedrock of Taiwan's democracy and is quite clear. So is the consensus about dealing with China -- everyone wants the economic benefits, nobody wants political talks. And nobody wants to pay to clean up the mess.

Further, it is hard to see how this alleged lack of consensus makes Taiwan any weaker than it already is in talks with China. Taiwan's problems are caused by China's rampant military buildup and growing economic might. There is little Taiwan can do about that. This situation is compounded by the fact that Washington has burned trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives over the last decade making central Asia and the Middle East safe for Chinese investment and expansion, instead of having its eye on the ball in Asia and investing in its people at home.

The truth is that Taiwan's divisions over China mirror the Beltway's own schizophrenic behavior -- it formally defines Taiwan's status as undecided but breaks out in hives if the I-word is mentioned. It lauds democracy, human rights, rule of law, and social consensus, but then supports the KMT, the party that benefits the most from ruling a divided society with a rough, imperfect democracy. It worries about China's growing power and influence, yet trades with it, transfers new technologies to China, trains its engineers and technologists, and invites its state-run economy to play in capitalist markets. Even Washington's China experts and punditocracy fill the airwaves with China commentary and advice to the government, while quietly doing lucrative consulting deals with Beijing. In fact, it seems to me that the real division and lack of consensus lies in Washington, and that as soon as the Beltway starts providing real leadership on Asia and displays a consistent, forward-looking, and concrete policy attitude on China, Taiwan will respond.

Lead, Washington.

REF: Bush once wondered aloud why China continued with the military build up since Ma was playing ball. Washington amazes me sometimes._______________________[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums! Delenda est, baby.

13 comments:

zhiyou
said...

Washington is leading, what they say they want and what they actually do are different things however. Large companies are making incredible amounts of money by basically transferring the US's middle class wealth to China. Sadly, the US government is really not working for it's citizens, but for instead for the people at the top. It seems these companies only care about short term profit. Even if it means enabling an evil group of thugs like the CCP to grow in power.

In fact, it seems to me that the real division and lack of consensus lies in Washington, and that as soon as the Beltway starts providing real leadership on Asia and displays a consistent, forward-looking, and concrete policy attitude on China, Taiwan will respond.

Very keen observation. As a matter of fact, Japan's new administration has started responsding to the Senkaku crisis with a more independent mind. Hillary Clinton's recent comment on Senkaku Islands is the same old rhetoric. Japanese culture views loyalty highly in a friendship and see it as a reciprocal thing. Since the US does not have the loyalty to Japan, the US is going to get only the politeness from the Japanese in the not-too-far future.

It worries about China's growing power and influence, yet trades with it, transfers new technologies to China, trains its engineers and technologists, and invites its state-run economy to play in capitalist markets.

It's amazing how people/media can't or don't want to see China as it is, an oppressive brutal authoritarian state.

Yet Americas politician still go to such lengths to isolate Cuba which threatens no other country and certainly could not threaten USA.

The money and lives that has been wasted in the Middle East is horrific. The third? presidential debate was supposed to be on foreign policy. All remarks were about Middle East and Asia was ignored. I think China's got the message from Washington/West that Asia isnot that important and China can do and has done whatever it wants.

I read your first few comments and the excerpts from the article and thought perhaps you were being too harsh with Mr. Bush - that perhaps be was slyly inserting a message for the KMT that they needed to here. So I read Mr. Bush's statements myself.

On reading the article it quickly became clear that Mr. Bush was trying to please his KMT audience and avoid offending them. Was he perhaps buttering them up before delivering the words they didn't want to hear? He kept on though, throwing more and more red meat to the KMT, doing his utmost to interpret every bit of history in the way the KMT would want it interpreted.

I started to think it sounded like an Obama speech, attempting to twist the past in an Orwellian manner to make it the exact opposit of what it was.

But Mr. Bush went well beyond anything I've heard from President Obama. President Obama's twisting is, I suppose, diluted by his general lack of content.

So I started to wonder what I could possibly compare Mr. Bush's speech to. An American right-wing radio talk-show host? A Democratic Senator? Al Qaeda?

But no, this speech surpasses all of those in nakedly abandoning a fair reading of history for an imagined KMT-serving fantasy.

It can only be compared to an old-fashioned communist propagandist or a modern Chinese propagandist. Of course, I suspect Mr. Bush is neither communist nor Chinese. What then was his motivation? How much was he paid for this speech and how much might he expect to be paid for future speeches?

The very last section of the speech has some rational questions for the KMT, but they are mostly non-political and it seems hard to believe that all the music-to-KMT-ears that lead up to it was necessary to get the KMT to listen to the questions.

I'm not sure I recommend the speech to anyone. I read the whole thing, but it held my interest in much the same way a Star Wars winter TV special holds your attention. It's too awful to be believed and you keep looking hoping, against all evidence, that it will get better.

On reading the article it quickly became clear that Mr. Bush was trying to please his KMT audience and avoid offending them. Was he perhaps buttering them up before delivering the words they didn't want to hear? He kept on though, throwing more and more red meat to the KMT, doing his utmost to interpret every bit of history in the way the KMT would want it interpreted.

Modern Taiwan was build by several countries efforts. A lot of Taiwanese paid their lives to make Taiwan free from Communists China. Famous Taiwan Ports, its fleet, modern structures were created by the different empires and their nations. It may be just impolite to issue simple target of “economic friendship” with the Main-land China which main-ly has only “stolen and simplified technologies” and which is ruled by the same Mao communists But, in some cases, Taiwan should perform such kind of moves to Taiwanese people. “Performing” the difference is the best way to explain the “difference” to Taiwanese People. Profound analysis may show that Mainland China is at the beginning of its decline. But, common people has no time or intention to make “profound analysis” so it is better “to perform” for them.

Photos on this blog are hosted by Flickr. I used to enthusiastically recommend Flickr but the new site changes have grievously impaired its usefulness. My current recommendation: find another photo host. My photos at Flickr. Just click on any photo to be taken to its Flickr page to view it in larger size.